F A Q
B. Blake Levitt’s answers to 10 top questions you might have about the science, the animals, the towers, etc.
What is the Difference Between Radiation from the Sun and Radiowave Radiation?
The major difference between the radiation
from the sun is it can’t penetrate walls. Radiowave radiation can penetrate
“Of the immense quantities of radiation
that pervade the Universe and impinge on the Earth, only those in visible light
and RADIO and a few in infrared are able to penetrate to the Earth’s surface.”
This is directly taken from NASA.
“Various wavelengths of solar EM radiation
penetrate Earth’s atmosphere to various depths. Fortunately for us, all of the
high energy X-rays and most UV is filtered out long before it reaches the
ground. Much of the infrared radiation is also absorbed by our atmosphere far
above our heads. MOST RADIO WAVES DO MAKE IT TO THE GROUND, along with a narrow
“window” of IR, UV, and visible light frequencies.”
Why is a Cell Phone is Not Like a "Smart" meter (http://sagereports.com)
The FCC uses SAR. The FCC uses
SAR defines safety limit Power Density safety limit
Near field Far field
You can use an earpiece You cannot reduce the RF
You can use speakerphone
You cannot reduce the RF
Body Burden = Body Burden =
every day = uW/cm2/year
US adult use of Power
W times 10-12 transmitters
compare them? Like we do in
total mG/years? In epi studies?
A smart meter produces radiofrequency microwave radiation
in approximately the same frequency range as typical cell tower (wireless
The smart meter produces RF in all directions, rather than
sectorized like cell towers with panel antennae (this means, RF from a smart
meter goes out in all directions, not just in a beam in one or more specific
directions, like a fell tower or WI-Max does).
intensity from cell towers can vary (be reduced) if there is a big difference
in elevation between the antennae on the cell tower, and the point of interest
(a home, for example).
Smart meters zap
ya' right at eye level. or body level.
Smart meters produce radiation at equal elevation to
occupied space (the first floor of a home) and the outside areas of the
Cell towers produce radiofrequency microwave radiation
that affects people in a whole-body pattern (people are immersed in the RF over
all the body).
Exposures are in the
far-field (not the near-field like cell phones) so that RF levels are
relatively predictable in intensity (except for any local reflections, which
can greatly increase RF in unpredictable zones at distance from the RF source).
A cell tower (T-Mobile example) with an effective radiated
poser of 1480 watts at 1900 MHz creates a maximum RF level of 92 wM/cm2
(Antenna Model APX16DV)
92uWcm2at about 75'
(At equal elevation)
Long-term exposure to whole-body radiofrequency and
microwave radiation should not be considered benign or of no public health
importance (Kundi and Hutter, 2009).
"The most important difference between mobile phone
use and exposure from base station signals is duration of exposure. While mobile phones are used intermittently
with exposure duration seldom exceeding 1 h per day, exposure to base stations
is continuous and for up to 24 h a day.
It has also to be mentioned that the exposure of mobile phone users is
in the near field and localized at the head region, which base stations expose
the whole body to the far field. Strictly speaking exposure from mobile phones
and their base stations have almost nothing in common except for the almost
equal carrier frequency that is likely of no importance for biological
"Despite some methodological limitations of the
different studies there are still strong indications that long-term exposure
near base stations affects wellbeing. Symptoms
most often associated with exposure were headaches, concentration difficulties,
restlessness, and tremor. Sleeping
problems were also related to distance from base station or power density, but
it is possible that these results are confounded by concerns about adverse
effects of the base station, or more generally, by specific personality
traits. While the data are insufficient
to delineate a threshold for adverse effects the lack of observed effects at
factions of a mW/m2 power density suggests that, at least with respect to
wellbeing, around 0.5-1mW/m2 must be exceeded in order to observe an
effect. This figure is also compatible
with experimental studies of wellbeing that found effects at 2.7 and 10mW/m2.
"Overall results of investigations into the effects
of exposure to base station signals are mirroring the broader spectrum of
studies on handsets and on RF-EMF in general.
There are indications from epidemiology that such exposures affect
wellbeing and health weakly supported by human provocation studies and an
inconclusive body of evidence from animal and in vitro studies."
Even the FCC's own consumer website is not updated to
caution that exposures to cell phone frequency radiation from devices may
warrant precautionary action by individuals.
Since these devices are cleared for use by the FCC on the basis that
they comply with existing safety limits, it is instructive to learn that
precautionary advice has been issued anyway, based on new reports that such
limits are insufficient to protect public health.
reports by some health and safety interest groups have suggested that wireless
device use can be linked to cancer and other illnesses. These questions have become more pressing as
more and younger people are using the devices, and for longer periods of
time. No scientific evidence currently
establishes a definite link between wireless device use and cancer or other
illness, but almost all parties debating the risks of using wireless devices
agree that more and longer-term studies are needed. After listening to several expert witness, a United States
Senate committee recently came to this same conclusion." "Even though no scientific evidence currently
establishes a definite link between wireless device use and cancer or other
illnesses, some parties recommend taking the precautions listed below. When
considering these precautions, remember that your wireless device only emits RF
energy when you are using it and that the closer the device is to you, the more
energy you will absorb. Also, some
parties assert that any potential health risks are probably greater for
children than for adults. Finally, some
experts think that low frequency magnetic fields rather than RF energy measured
by the SAR possibly are responsible for any potential risk associated with
Neither the World Health Organization, nor the National
Toxicology Program have issued their findings on the carcinogenicity and
neurotoxicity of chronic exposure to low-intensity radiofrequency and microwave
radiation. Both institutions have
on-going research programs to determine the toxicity of chronic exposures. Current FCC public safety limits never
anticipated wireless technology health impacts and no longer provide a basis
for unilateral judgment of safety or risk.
For radiofrequency radiation exposures, they are based only on thermal
heating injury to tissue (what burns, damages).
They do not recognize or take into account non-thermal (or preferably,
low-intensity) RF exposures that are reported to cause biological effects that
can, with chronic exposure, reasonably be presumed to result in adverse health
Compliance with existing and obsolete FCC standards for
exposure to radiofrequency radiation is no longer a basis for assuring
safety. The City is clearly aware of
international and national controversy
about the inadequacy of existing FCC and ICNIRP safety limits with
respect to wireless technologies.
Plain Talk about Cell Phone (Sage, 2010) documents studies
that show about a doubling of risk for malignant brain tumor (glioma) with 10
years or more cell phone use, ipsilateral, for adult; and a five-fold risk for
children who use them as youngsters, by the time they are in the 20-29 age
group. this means any comparison of as
smart meter to a cell phone is not only an incorrect comparison, but that if it
were, cell phones are potentially carcinogenic with chronic exposure. Hardly reassuring.
The issue with digital meters:
There is a book about this
subject called "Dirty Electricity" http://www.sammilham.com/ I would suggest reading it for a
better understanding of the health effects associated with these high frequency fields.